162 comments posted · 2 followers · following 13
9 years ago @ Wonkette - Your Wonkette Surveill... · 1 reply · +6 points
Saying something is 'for the most part secure' is completely compatible with my claim that we use encryption to keep lay people out, which it is extremely effective at doing. That one 768 bit key took a team of dedicated supercomputers a year and a half to break, which I feel falls within my definition of sufficiently determined.
EDIT: I'm sorry, I need to amend this post. I forgot about one-time-padding and quantum cryptography, which none of the aforementioned services the NSA is monitoring use.
DOUBLE EDIT: Actually, it's occurred to me that I might not have been clear with this; you're right, the NSA is just asking Google for the transmitted data, which is easier than trying to break it. The beef of my post was to the latter of the article's claims, that social networking services have servers so insecure that they could be broken like this. My point was that if they *had to* do it, they most certainly *could*.
9 years ago @ Wonkette - Your Wonkette Surveill... · 0 replies · +7 points
9 years ago @ Wonkette - Your Wonkette Surveill... · 1 reply · +11 points
But upfist, because yeah, it's pretty unrealistic to think you can have privacy on an open internet.
9 years ago @ Wonkette - Your Wonkette Surveill... · 8 replies · +33 points
Nothing, nothing over any wireless or wired or donkey-carried communication is secure. This is not tin-foil-hattery or paranoia, it's the truth. Communications between individuals can be monitored at any time. They are encrypted not to keep out the people who actually know how to decipher them, but to keep out lay people who don't have the resources any major intelligence agency has.
It's not a matter of Google or Yahoo's servers being insecure; they may have some of the best private-level security in the world, but a sufficiently-dedicated codebreaker can, given enough time and resources, subvert that security. It's a fact of life -- our current style of cryptography isn't to make passwords magically secret, it's to make passwords that are so incredibly complex that they require refrigerator-sized supercomputers to figure out or extremely specialized hardware.
The shocking thing about this whole debacle is that so many people are regarding it as news: As has been explained, the NSA has been around and capable since 1952. Hell, it developed many of the security protocols we use today and adopted most of them as standards as time passed, until someone *in* the NSA found an effective way to break them.
I just wish the government would be honest about it -- none of this 'The innocent have nothing to hide' rhetoric, that's disingenuous. Go for something more realistic, like "Yeah, we know Dok Zoom is signed up on badponiesbigbronies.com, and we really don't give two bags of salted rat dicks."
9 years ago @ Wonkette - Dana Perino Writes Gro... · 1 reply · +9 points
*checks watch* Better go grab my whiskey and help my USMC Iraq/Afghan veteran friend work through his PTSD. :(
9 years ago @ Wonkette - Not Knowing What Else ... · 0 replies · +7 points
9 years ago @ Wonkette - Anthony Weiner Lets It... · 1 reply · +5 points
10 years ago @ Wonkette - Erick Erickson: Let's ... · 0 replies · +4 points
And then I'll be happy.
10 years ago @ Wonkette - South Carolina Republi... · 0 replies · +3 points
10 years ago @ Wonkette - Senate Approves Sandy ... · 7 replies · +8 points